Solar, Wind Renewable Energy

[Music Lover]

The sea level has been rising at the same rate for hundreds of years. CO2 has had no effect.

CO2 effect on temperature operates on a known logarithmic scale and any added CO2 will have negligible effect. That's well known and settled science from decades ago. In fact, CO2 used to be 10 times higher than today during ice ages.

CO2 is plant food...plants may have adapted (or barely hung on) during lower levels, but all they still thrive on higher levels. If CO2 drops below 150 ppm, plant life on Earth will cease to exist and virtually all animal life will also cease to exist.

 

[meierlde]

The sea level has been rising at the same rate for hundreds of years. CO2 has had no effect.

CO2 effect on temperature operates on a known logarithmic scale and any added CO2 will have negligible effect. That's well known and settled science from decades ago. In fact, CO2 used to be 10 times higher than today during ice ages.

CO2 is plant food...plants may have adapted (or barely hung on) during lower levels, but all they still thrive on higher levels. If CO2 drops below 150 ppm, plant life on Earth will cease to exist and virtually all animal life will also cease to exist.

Here is an article from nature that explains different systems of Co2 uptake in different plants and how a lot of important crops won't benefit, since they already have co2 concentrating mechanisms built in.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/kno...atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108
So the answer is it depends on the plant (actually its type of photosynthesis mechanism)

 

[Totoro]

CO2 effect on temperature operates on a known logarithmic scale and any added CO2 will have negligible effect. That's well known and settled science from decades ago.

Care to share a source for that?

In fact, CO2 used to be 10 times higher than today during ice ages.

Which ice age specifically? CO2 isn't the only factor affecting climate, have you corrected for the sun's output back then?

CO2 is plant food...plants may have adapted (or barely hung on) during lower levels, but all they still thrive on higher levels. If CO2 drops below 150 ppm, plant life on Earth will cease to exist and virtually all animal life will also cease to exist.

Yes, and? We're above 400 ppm right now and rising. The issue isn't plants thriving, it's humans thriving in the places they are settled right now. Last time we were 4 degrees different than now, it was 4 degrees colder and Boston was buried under a mile of ice.

 

[Music Lover]

Care to share a source for that?

It's known science. The fact that the sources are not readily shared or known is a statement in itself.

Which ice age specifically? CO2 isn't the only factor affecting climate, have you corrected for the sun's output back then?

Check the historical records...again, this information is readily available. Since ice ages come and go rather quickly in geological time frames, there is virtually no change in sun output between the start and end of any particular ice age.

The fact that ice ages came and went when CO2 was 10 times higher than today needs to be fully explained before people can claim a minor amount of CO2 today creates dangerous warming...but for some reason it never did before.

Yes, and? We're above 400 ppm right now and rising. The issue isn't plants thriving, it's humans thriving in the places they are settled right now. Last time we were 4 degrees different than now, it was 4 degrees colder and Boston was buried under a mile of ice.

I'm not sure what your point is...the climate changes on a regular basis as the records show. We're still coming out of an ice age and the temperature will continue to rise. People should be more worried about another ice age than minor warming.

My issue is with a trace gas being made the scapegoat for all warming, in spite of known science and historical facts that suggest otherwise. If trillions are to be spent on climate mitigation and renewable subsidies, then the scientific facts must back up the claims. And even if CO2 is contributing to some warming, it must first be proven that the warming is bad. I think a little warmer is better than living under a mile of ice.

 

[street]

It's known science. The fact that the sources are not readily shared or known is a statement in itself.



Check the historical records...again, this information is readily available. Since ice ages come and go rather quickly in geological time frames, there is virtually no change in sun output between the start and end of any particular ice age.

The fact that ice ages came and went when CO2 was 10 times higher than today needs to be fully explained before people can claim a minor amount of CO2 today creates dangerous warming...but for some reason it never did before.



I'm not sure what your point is...the climate changes on a regular basis as the records show. We're still coming out of an ice age and the temperature will continue to rise. People should be more worried about another ice age than minor warming.

My issue is with a trace gas being made the scapegoat for all warming, in spite of known science and historical facts that suggest otherwise. If trillions are to be spent on climate mitigation and renewable subsidies, then the scientific facts must back up the claims. And even if CO2 is contributing to some warming, it must first be proven that the warming is bad. I think a little warmer is better than living under a mile of ice.

Exactly and factual to my understand also.

 

[aja8888]

If sea level rise does not drown the greenhouses. The link between CO2 content and temperature is well substantiated in the geological record, the higher the CO2 the warmer the climate. And it should be noted that only some plants respond as well plants that evolved later adapted to the lower Co2 levels in the last 60 million years.

OK, you guys with the statistics, how many more years will I have to wait before the sea level rises enough to drown me out of my house which is at 160' above mean sea level. (north side of Houston, TX)?

 

[Montecfo]

OK, you guys with the statistics, how many more years will I have to wait before the sea level rises enough to drown me out of my house which is at 160' above mean sea level. (north side of Houston, TX)?

Its academic. Are you a strong swimmer?

But I think the point being made is it is unclear that much can be done about it, other than adaptation, which is what we have always done.

 

[aja8888]

Its academic. Are you a strong swimmer?

But I think the point being made is it is unclear that much can be done about it, other than adaptation, which is what we have always done.

I know it's academic, that's why I asked. Is it a million years, or ten million? You folks are great at throwing out "outcomes" and "potential calamities" so how about quantifying this for a simplistic engineer with a financial MBA?

Thanks..

 

[Music Lover]

OK, you guys with the statistics, how many more years will I have to wait before the sea level rises enough to drown me out of my house which is at 160' above mean sea level. (north side of Houston, TX)?

Average historical sea level rise is about an eight of an inch per year. Based on that, you have about 1,280 years before you have to worry.

However, if another ice age comes along before that then the sea level will drop as more ice forms on land and that time frame will be extended

 

[meierlde]

Its academic. Are you a strong swimmer?

But I think the point being made is it is unclear that much can be done about it, other than adaptation, which is what we have always done.

The concern is more about Clear Lake and that area. As an example I live at 1980 feet so sea level rise is not a direct issue, but the issue is where do the folks from Clear Lake, near Hobby Airport etc go when they are flooded out first by big storms, then little storms etc. Also New Orleans, Miami etc.

 

[Totoro]

Well Music Lover, if you can't deliver references to well established facts that I'm curious to learn about and can't easily find myself, it seems a discussion is rather pointless.

I just want to have the most correct worldview there is to be had. Currently, this is what I think I know:

• CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
• If you double CO2 in the atmosphere, temperatures global rise by 2.5 to 3 degrees celsius, climate shifts, oceans become more acidic
• Climate shifting means a.o. lengthening growing seasons in the higher latitudes, more and bigger hurricanes, bigger droughts and hurricanes, shifting weather patterns, rising sea levels, more flashfloods and heatwaves, and an ice free arctic
• The sum of these effects are negative, with regional positives

Help me out?

 

[Totoro]

I know it's academic, that's why I asked. Is it a million years, or ten million? You folks are great at throwing out "outcomes" and "potential calamities" so how about quantifying this for a simplistic engineer with a financial MBA?

Thanks..

As an engineer with an MBA, you certainly are aware it's not really when, it's more what's required. What's required is roughly melting all the ice on Antarctica.

Last time that happened was 35 million years ago, so apparently it can be done. No idea what caused it back then. It seems the planet was 5-8 degrees warmer vs. now (Wikipedia, for what it's worth). For reference: it's when India probably was just starting to crash into Asia.

An upper boundary for when that will happen is the sun heating up: that'll take at least another billion years though, maybe even two.

 

[travelover]

.......... it seems a discussion is rather pointless.
..........

Yup. No one is convinced by these arguments.

 

[ERD50]

I'll skip the global warming discussion, and try t catch up on some other posts...

Note that the cost for energy storage is declining less than $400/kwh today resulting in a cost per kwh of about $.13 (based upon 4000 charge discharge cycles). It is both utility scale and individual units that are following a cost curve similar to what solar and wind have followed. If you can get the cost down below the cost of storage in a Tesla (150/kwh) then it becomes economic. (In fact one opportunity is to take electric car batteries and repurpose them for home use after they no longer have the range for a car) A home environment is far easier on a battery than a car considering for example a Tesla 3 has a 192 kw motor, meaning the battery pack has to deliver that much power if you mash the accelerator. Consider that modern home service entrances have 200 amp service entrances, which is about 50 kw so it is clear the electric car is harder on batteries. ....

That is a good use of EV batteries, a stationary application can do fine with somewhat depleted batteries, as they aren't so concerned about weight/space, just buy more if they are cheap enough.

But while it helps, how much can it help? It gets a little crazy when you scale things up, instead of just thinking about the concept.

Looking at the "Duck Curve", when solar starts to wane, and demand is growing as people get home - this is a gap that the utilities would love to fill with some short term storage (that was the idea behind the SMUD pumped hydro, which was canceled). Their baseline plants can't ramp up/down fast enough, so they have to waste fuel by starting them early and then running them too long.

If we spit-ball that, and say we just want to fill in that peak above the 25,000 line with storage, looks like ~ 2,000MW for ~ 3 hours? So 6,000MW-Hrs?

If we assume an old Tesla battery could provide 50 KW-Hrs (generous I think, and probably could not do it daily for long), we get 6,000/.05 = 120,000 old Tesla batteries. Though if they were distributed (likely), that would ease some peak currents on the transmission lines which is a good thing.

I'm not really sure how much fossil fuel is saved by doing some shifting like that. Probably fairly small % overall? Also remember that any storage system has losses. Using another generous 90% round-trip efficiency to charge an old Tesla battery, and then get the juice back out, you need to put in 11% more energy than you get out (denominators are funny things!). So that's another cost.

And if we really want to go green, and entirely eliminate a coal plant, we will need enough storage for a full day at least. Typical 800MW coal plant (there are about 20 of those in IL), would be 384,000 old Tesla batteries. And if we need it for all 20 IL coal plants, that's 7,680,000 old Tesla batteries. And if we need it for a week of reduced output, say we still get 25% over a week... that's... about 40 Million old Tesla batteries. Just for IL.

... Plus a bit of time shifting can help. ....

It does help - a bit.

I thin someone earlier mentioned desalination plants for time shifting power demands. The trouble is, most of these sorts of things are capital intensive. It just isn't affordable to run something like that a few hours a day, those may need to be run 24/7. There is some opportunity, but like most things, it is probably a little thing. It helps, a little.

-ERD50

 

[Music Lover]

[*]If you double CO2 in the atmosphere, temperatures global rise by 2.5 to 3 degrees celsius

I went OT with the CO2 debate, so I'll just comment on your one claim and will then leave this topic alone.

CO2 used to be 10 times higher than today during both ice ages and non ice ages, so that statement is not factual. Until a reasonable explanation is provided with data to back it up, the warming claims have absolutely no credibility.

 

[Rianne]

In my OP, I stated we are paying .048/KW based on wind power. The discussion went haywire. May I submit another link and wait for all the engineers and so forth to dispute it. Let's stop talking about the effects of global warming. Let's just look at our own pocketbooks. I want to save money in a good way.

Renewable Electricity Levelized Cost Of Energy Already Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels, And Prices Keep Plunging - Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology

 

[HFWR]

I went OT with the CO2 debate, so I'll just comment on your one claim and will then leave this topic alone.



CO2 used to be 10 times higher than today during both ice ages and non ice ages, so that statement is not factual. Until a reasonable explanation is provided with data to back it up, the warming claims have absolutely no credibility.

And still no data...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

 

[Chuckanut]

Maybe the best thing for many of us to do is just make sure we use as little electricity as possible while maintaining a descent life style. Then we can wait for all of this solar/wind stuff to sort itself out.

 

[meierlde]

And still no data...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

True if you mean the slushball earth of the protozoic. But conditions were drastically different, starting with a significatly dimmer sun (650 million years ago). Further there was no life outside the seas and basically only single celled animals in the ocean. Yes the levels were much higher perhaps up to 2000 times in the early parts of the protozoic but were needed to keep the earth from freezing over (it would today without Co2 and water the surface temp would be -14c or so.) In addition the configuration of land and sea were different with most of the time one big land area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proterozoic


It does appear that the question of which latitude ocean currents can sweep around the world is perhaps more important to ice ages. It is thought that the current period of ice ages came with the closing of Panama, and a bit earlier the closing of the Teyths ocean. There were a number of ice ages in the Proterozoic but between different configurations of land and sea (continents do drift around and break up and reassemble over time, the dimmer sun back then the question of CO2 effect has to many other variables involved, one really needs to ask the question only about the Cenozoic glaciations when land see configurations and sun brightness were about the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proterozoic


So in summary yes the CO2 levels of the Proterozoic glaciation where higher than today but so many other things have chaged in the last .5 to 1.5 billion years that pure Co2 level measurement and its relation to ice ages is not relevant. (Start with less sunlight and heat from the sun)

 

[DebInOH]

What if...

Dr. Steven Greer announces "The Campaign That Ends Illegal UFO & Free Energy Secrecy" once and for all and makes a call to all of those who are involved in the FREE ENERGY technologies.
https://youtu.be/mniHASeuRHk

 

[RobLJ]

The concern is more about Clear Lake and that area. As an example I live at 1980 feet so sea level rise is not a direct issue, but the issue is where do the folks from Clear Lake, near Hobby Airport etc go when they are flooded out first by big storms, then little storms etc. Also New Orleans, Miami etc.

They go to Dallas, or Colorado or, like me, to Reno!

 

[RobLJ]

If you're really interested, there is this little thing called the Milankovitch Cycles which largely (although not completely) explain most of the glaciation cycles, despite the insolation being relatively flat, as you note.

There are other issues like carbon uptake through rock formation, the further back you go, but Milankovitch explains most of what you apparently need to know.



This is a simplified explainer, but it will count at least for horseshoes.



Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation


And it is "known science," as you say.

It's known science. The fact that the sources are not readily shared or known is a statement in itself.



Check the historical records...again, this information is readily available. Since ice ages come and go rather quickly in geological time frames, there is virtually no change in sun output between the start and end of any particular ice age.

The fact that ice ages came and went when CO2 was 10 times higher than today needs to be fully explained before people can claim a minor amount of CO2 today creates dangerous warming...but for some reason it never did before.



I'm not sure what your point is...the climate changes on a regular basis as the records show. We're still coming out of an ice age and the temperature will continue to rise. People should be more worried about another ice age than minor warming.

My issue is with a trace gas being made the scapegoat for all warming, in spite of known science and historical facts that suggest otherwise. If trillions are to be spent on climate mitigation and renewable subsidies, then the scientific facts must back up the claims. And even if CO2 is contributing to some warming, it must first be proven that the warming is bad. I think a little warmer is better than living under a mile of ice.

 

[RobLJ]

If you want to get finer grained within narrower glacial cycles, you can look at things like the breaking of the Aggasiz ice dam, which caused a mini-ice age by the yuge influx of cold water into the Atlantic out Hudson Bay.



Interesting, this is one parallel (albeit a crude one) to what glacier scientists are discovering about accelerating Greenland and Antarctic melt--perhaps if the melt gets quick enough in Greenland, we can get our own little ice age--eventually--for at least Eastern North America and Europe/Siberia! Cool! If so, I would advise the grandkids or great grandkids to sell that house in Clear Lake or Galveston and moving up a little north of Glen Rose (where the dinosaur tracks are captured in the great marsh that covered South/Central Texas back in the day).



That condo on the shore in Miami is very likely already a bad idea, if your goal is to bequeath it to the grandbabies.

If you're really interested, there is this little thing called the Milankovitch Cycles which largely (although not completely) explain most of the glaciation cycles, despite the insolation being relatively flat, as you note.

There are other issues like carbon uptake through rock formation, the further back you go, but Milankovitch explains most of what you apparently need to know.



This is a simplified explainer, but it will count at least for horseshoes.



Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation


And it is "known science," as you say.

 

[RobLJ]

Here's a link (to the Wiki) for the Agassiz dam, about 8500 years back.



"The last of the North American proglacial lakes, north of the present Great Lakes, has been designated Glacial Lake Ojibway by geologists. It reached its largest volume around 8,500 years ago, when joined with Lake Agassiz. But its outlet was blocked by the great wall of the glaciers and it drained by tributaries, into the Ottawa and St. Lawrence Rivers far to the south. About 8,300 to 7,700 years ago, the melting ice dam over Hudson Bay's southernmost extension narrowed to the point where pressure and its buoyancy lifted it free, and the ice-dam failed catastrophically. Lake Ojibway's beach terraces show that it was 250 metres (820 ft) above sea level. The volume of Lake Ojibway is commonly estimated to have been about 163,000 cubic kilometres, more than enough water to cover a flattened-out Antarctica with a sheet of water 10 metres (33 ft) deep. That volume was added to the world's oceans in a matter of months."


Pretty interesting reading.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outburst_flood

 

[RobLJ]

Interesting thread. Nords post on Hawaii grid is particularly interesting, since the challenge here is something like 20 years or so ahead of the mainland areas rapidly shifting towards renewables.